Just think you could have wolves racing thru Estes Park and Gramby, with luck they could make their kills on the school grounds, maybe even den there.
Whatever are you guys thinking? I know greens tend to think that they have this grand plan for the world and they want it redone to their specs, but please stop and think guys.
Have any of you heard of elk hunting? It is done in the Teton NP, and it could be done there, it would bring money in, would control where kills were done, and be much easier to control.
Take a look at the northern herd in Yellowstone, it has dropped from 19,000 at introduction of Canadian wolves in 1995 to 3649 in March of 2006. And they are still killing elk every day. Hunters can be controlled if the numbers go down, wolves will just continue to run the elk more and more ruining thier health. There is no control over a lot of wolves, none.

I agree with Marion. Right now there is an endangered elk herd along the Montana Idaho border that is attributed to wolves. I believe the goal should be population stabilization and elimination of the boom and bust cycles from the unregulated killing by a predator. Other alternatives may include "elk drives" moving them out of the park and transplantation to other states tring to re-establish elk herds. The wolf is a fine and majestic animal that is hard to control without the slaughter of it as well.

Yup, those nasty old wolves exterminated the elk in North America long before the Europeans arrived and brought them back with them from...somewhere. There weren't any elk or bison or pronghorns or deer here before the white men got rid of the wolves, were there?
Let's send in the nimrods to take care of the excess elk in RMNP. The park gift shop could even rent body armour and helmets to the non-gun-toting campers and hikers.

See especially the sections entitled "Wolf Predation" (the last paragraph) and "Status of Big Game Herds". Wolves are responsible for less than 10% of elk and deer mortality, and many of the wolf-killed animals would have starved to death anyway. For some reason this information appears to be beyond the comprehension of the anti-wolf folks.

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/apps/releases/view.cfm?NewsID=3156

April 25, 2006 IDAHO FISH AND GAME
SALMON REGION NEWS RELEASE

Dave, it's unnecessary to insult people you don't even know by calling them nimrods. Those people started groups like Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, and the TRCP. These people seek both habitat and wildlife enhancement.

As to wolves and elk please refer to Jim Unsworth, the Idaho Fish and Game Department’s wildlife bureau chief, which called for the reduction of wolves in the Lolo area to save the elk. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_control.cfm

As a "nimrod" myself, I don't consider the term an insult; if anything it's a compliment that many hunters I've observed don't deserve.

From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nimrod

Main Entry: Nim·rod
Pronunciation: 'nim-"räd
Function: noun
Etymology: Hebrew NimrOdh
1 : a descendant of Ham represented in Genesis as a mighty hunter and a king of Shinar
2 not capitalized : HUNTER

As for Jim Unsworth's recommendation, I smell politics. Less than 10% elk mortality attributed to wolf predation doesn't seem to me to call for such a drastic wolf cull. Other experts have commented on this controversial recommendation and have emphasized the generally poor quality of elk habitat in the contested area.

Dave, from the American Heritage Dictionary:
NOUN:
1. also Nimrod A hunter.
2. Informal. A person regarded as silly, foolish, or stupid.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/nimrod;_ylt=ArOsKdPjXjLwUJQYLZKf4yOsgMMF

Somehow in reading both of your previous posts I don’t get the feeling you were being complimentary. As to the wolves and elk see the chart and graphs.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_control_charts.cfm

Unfortunately a lot of information is skewed, while it may indeed be true that overall in a certain state, or generally in the United States, wolves account for less than 10%, the fact remains in wolf impacted areas, the rate is probably reversed.
The facts of the Norris herd, the northern Yellowstone herd, and the Lolo herd in Idaho, are pretty clear indicators of the damage a big numbr of wolves can do. It might have been better if they had brought in only a few of them, but they brought so many that they overwhelmed the herds. Can it be reversed? That is a question since there is no way anyone is going to allow the huge numbers of wolves to be brought down. Doing the same thing in Estes would be a disaster in my opinion.

I'm proud to refer to myself as a nimrod since I can choose whichever valid definition I wish. The context in which I used the word above pretty much clinches which definition I had in mind in terms of gunners shooting elk in RMNP. Nimrod hunters shoot animals; nimrod silly, foolish, or stupid people do silly, foolish, or stupid things, not necessarily having anything to do with shooting anything.
By the way ever wonder how North American ungulates co-existed with wolves before Europeans came here to help them out by eliminating all their nasty predators?

Dave, I prefer to stay on subject. Please refer to the Q&A;from the Idaho Game and Fish for their reasons for reducing the wolf pack.
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_qa.cfm

Marion mentioned "the facts of...the northern Yellowstone herd..." being one of the "clear indicators of the damage a big number of wolves can do."
Clear indicator? Yeah, right. Ever hear of bears? Read on.
http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/bears_elk_research.html
Biologists ear tagged 44 new born elk calves during the second, 2004 study period with radio transmitters. Thirty one of the original 44 are now dead. Eighteen of the calves were taken by bears (black and grizzly), 3 - wolves, 4 - coyotes, 1 - golden eagle, 1 - unknown specie, bear or wolf, 2 - unknown predator, and 2 - non-depredation causes (natural or other). During the first years study of 2003, 51 new born elk calves were ear collared, of which 34 died. Nineteen calves were killed by grizzly and black bears, 5 - wolves, 3 - coyotes, 2 - either bears or wolves, 1 - mountain lion, 1 - wolverine, and 3 - unknown causes (natural or other).

Craig, I thought I was staying on subject, responding to your nimrod posting and asking the serious question about the co-existence of wolves (and other predators) and ungulates before the intervention of Europeans. Needless to say, differences of opinion exist among scientist and game managers about the impact of predators of all kinds on their prey populations. This includes the Lolo area elk populations where degrading habitat over the years has had a severe impact on the herd. How many times do biologists have to demonstrate that the key to healthy wildlife populations is improved habitat? It's like reinventing the wheel every 10 years; after a while it gets a bit tedious. Predators and prey are adapted to co-exist, and they both do just fine if they have enough resources available to take care of their needs. All wildlife biologists and managers know this.

Dave, you are ignoring a few facts. First of all the results of the elk calf mortality are the spring numbers only. FWS does not release how many of those calves are killed by wolves in the fall and winter, thus we have only half of the information. I don't know of anyone who would dispute the impact of bears in the first few weeks of an elk calf's life. Signaling the location with a chopper landing and messing the the baby doesn't help either, as far a letting the bears know dinner is ready.
The second problem with your idea is, there is a big difference in naturally occurring predator population's effects and bringing a large number in and putting them in one place. No one has ever tried to interfere in a natural process to that extent before.
Historically wolf sightings were extremely rare going back to the first expedition to explore Yellowstone. Lions were much more common. President Roosevelt stated in his 1903 speech that the only canids in Yellowsotne in any numbers were coyotes.
The fact is the northern elk herd has dropped by 15,000 in the eleven years since the wolves were brought in, there is no reason to expect that to improve because there is no way to reduce the number of wolves until they run out of elk and are starved out.
When numbers of elk in a specific area drop dramatically, it is pretty disingenuous for supposed experts to start screaming habitat loss. Local professionals are much more familiar with habitat changes than activists, and I am refering to Lolo now.
Finally there is no way to compare the impact of naturally occuring wolves of a hundred plus years ago to the saturation introduction of very protected wolves today.
As Idaho is finding out, no matter how serious the problem with wolves gets in a specific area, the feds are still in control and they are not going to admit a problem exists.
They solve any problems that show the wolves might not be all that great for the "ecosytem" by just not publishing anything they don't want known. While NPS has published this years elk numbers, so far I haven't seen that from FWS.

"I don't know of anyone who would dispute the impact of bears in the first few weeks of an elk calf's life. Signaling the location with a chopper landing and messing the the baby doesn't help either, as far a letting the bears know dinner is ready."

Helecopters are not used to ear tag elk calves. We just walk up on them. Elk calves stay hidden in the tall grass and sage brush the first two weeks of life.

"Historically wolf sightings were extremely rare going back to the first expedition to explore Yellowstone."

You need to do some reading. Wolf sightings were common especially in the northern range of the park.

"The fact is the northern elk herd has dropped by 15,000 in the eleven years since the wolves were brought in, there is no reason to expect that to improve because there is no way to reduce the number of wolves until they run out of elk and are starved out."

Where did you get this info???? The real fact is the northern range elk herd, the largest in the world has only dropped from 15000 head to 12000 head since 1996 when the first packs of wolves were released. The northern range elk herd in Yellowstone is also the oldest elk herd with the average age of bulls between 12 and 15 years of age. Wolf predation during the early and late winter 30 days study periods this winter was the lowest ever recorded.

DO SOME RESEARCH AND READ

".......The (early winter 30 day ) study period also found that wolves tend to take very young or very old elk, while human hunters harvest many prime animals. The authors created mathematical models that found that elk killed by wolves likely were mostly "compensatory" deaths, or animals that would have died anyway due to natural causes.

Field teams during the 30 day early winter study period documented poor bone marrow in the majority of elk predated on by wolves which suggests a lack of food, or poor grazing conditions throughout the Northern Range.

In past years, this has not occured until the late winter 30 day study period in March, after the elk have survived most of the winter on body fat. The Hellroaring Pack reportedly killed only 6 elk during the 30 day study period, but were observed scavenging gut piles left by hunters just outside the Northern border. Field teams documented the Leopold Pack predated on a mixture of calves, cows and bulls."

To your first question regarding numbers. Here is the NPS link which clearly states an elk count of 3649 elk on March 23. I realize that is not considered complete as far as numbers, however the same count is being used to declare an increase in elk calf/cow ratio to 20. If one is considered accurate both have to be, not just the convenient one.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/0616b.htm

I don't know where you get the 12,000 number, I think that is the number they counted after the first major bad winter of 96-97, it has never been in five figures since then. A few years ago they only counted a little over 9000 elk and they put signs up all over the Park stating that was due to poor counting conditions, and the number was actually over 11,000. The next spring count was down to just over 8000, and the next 7000. Suddenly the early count in 2005 was up to 9500. The info on this year's count was not put out by FWS that I can find, only NPS. and Wyoming and Montana.
Please provide any reference to 12,000 now. Last fall there was a study done that showed the oldest average cow age ever, and I think that was supposed to be due to the very low calf/cow retention for several years. I would expect those cows to be in poor shape following a bad winter, plus the number of predators per elk gets higher as the elk numbers plummet. Why would the grazing conditions not improve as teh numbers of elk plummet? Perhaps the elk are being harrassed so much by wolves that they cannot stop to eat as they should.
I think it becomes difficult to make a case for poor habitat existing only in areas of severely dropping elk numbers and high wolf numbers.
They do use helicopters to locate and tag the calves, I have seen them with several (4 if I remember right) in their white suits chasing down the calf. The appropriateness of this type of thing has been discussed over and over on various chat lines for the last few years while the study was going on.
I would appreciate any refrences to significant wolf numbers in early history works. I used President Roosevelt's quote, and also refer to Lt. Doane's reort from the Wahsburn expedition, as well as Nathaniel Langford's journal from that expedition.

Bearman, here is some of the research I have read:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:3gnvUYq-RUwJ:wyoming.gov/governor/documents/Vucetichetal2005final.pdf+yellowstone+elk+decline&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8

Now going back to the beginning this discussion began as a question as to what to do with the over-population of elk in RMNP. Given the experience of Idaho and Yellowstone introducing wolves to thin the herd may have unintended consequences that lead to ultimately making the wolf the object of population control. I wince at that prospect as I see the wolf as a truly noble animal. Furthermore, they cannot be fine tuned to perform the right culling as responsible hunters are able to do. The Rocky Mountain states have experienced years of habitat stress from severe drought conditions which leads to weakened animals like the elk. Putting natures dry land sharks on the loose would only seem to exacerbate the problems of game management long term. With the triple combination of drought, uncontrolled predation of the weak, and rapidly rising wolf packs, those animals eventually turn to livestock for their food source. That, in turn, leads to calls for wolf kills which I deplore. End of discussion for me.

Raising the wolves to kill them is one of the big problems with this whole program. FWS has killed several times as many wolves as were killed during the 42 year history of killing wolves in the early years of Yellowstone.
It seems to me that every time man has decided to improve upon nature he has made it worse. That goes for removing the wolves and lions to allow ungulates to thrive, or bringing in large numbers of wolves to get rid of some of the ungulates.

"It seems to me that every time man has decided to improve upon nature he has made it worse"

So what's the problem with trying to restore it to how it was before Americans extirpated the wolves from the US? The elk and wolves evolved together. Neither population will survive as well as it has or should without the other. Believe it or not, all-knowing man has not always been here to control the populations of all the lowly animals. Believe it or not, we are not the center of everything.

Who gets to say how things were before mankind showed up??????????? Locals with a long family history? Historians? Environmentalists?

Hello all:

I hate to spread some rain on the claim about the Northern Herd's supposed collapsed to 3649 elk (allegedly on account of wolves), but here's an important paragraph from the Yellowstone National Park press release referred to above as the source of information about the most recent (winter 2006) herd classification:

"Due to a lack of snow cover and unusually windy conditions, the Northern Yellowstone Cooperative Working Group was unable to complete the annual winter trend count of northern Yellowstone elk during the typical period in late December or early January. Biologists attempted to conduct a count on March 22, 2006, but elk inside the park were widely distributed at higher elevations and in timbered areas, which made detection of elk difficult and unreliable compared to previous winters. Thus, the count was considered poor and inaccurate, and results are not comparable to surveys during good conditions in previous years. White stated “It was a frustrating winter and, unfortunately, we were unable to get a good count of the elk during the typical count period in December and January. We’ll certainly shoot for a good count next winter and, hopefully, see an increase in elk numbers if recruitment remains higher for another year.”

It is important to read things through to the end. The 2006 count is not a valid count.

I would also read the Vucetich document, also referred to above, more carefully. It actually contradicts the State of Wyoming's incorrect assertions about wolves in its recently submitted "petition to delist."

Robert Hoskins

Mr. Hoskins is correct that they had a lot of difficulty counting the elk herd this year. It was accomplished on March 23 in speciifc areas as per this release by NPS. They did not cut the count short that day. I do not know just what areas they counted, nor what areas they generally count. I do know they are celebrating the improved calf/ratio. That can only be as accurate as the entire count since they have to count both to develop a ratio.

http://www.nps.gov/yell/press/0616b.htm

I didn't say anything about what things were like before mankind showed up. I meant before the United States began its aggressive campaign to exterminate all wolves. We have all but destroyed the species. I think at least trying to undo that is the least we can do.

Isn't that the same thing? We have amny more wolves in Yellowstone right now, than any history indicates.
Wolves were a pest, and a dangerous pest at that in the early days of settlement. It is all very romantic to say the wolves deserve top spot, but when it cme down to whether the wolves ate or the farmers and ranchers who were settling this country, it is no contest.
I'll bet if it was your only milk cow or the wolf, even you'd shoot the wolf. Standing in judgement is easy, but just give thought to the pests you kill.
By the way there are lots of wolves, they are nor were ever in danger of disappearing.

"Isn't that the same thing?"

Are you saying Native Americans weren't people??

Aside from that, we should try to learn to live while respecting the land and environment we moved onto instead of forcing it to fit our desires. If anything, we're the pests. Just because we happen to be really good at molding our surroundings doesn't make it right.

Tim, all sorts of animals, including humankind, force their desires upon the land and the environment. Insects, birds, beavers, foxes, bears, etc., build nests, dens, and lodges that change the preexisting environment. Mankind is the only animal that is capable of conscious choice to rebalance the scales between competiting species for the same environment and food sources. Condors would not be making a comback without such intervention. Hardly the effects of a malicious pest.

This is true, but you can't say that the effects of humanity's actions aren't more far reaching than the effects of other species' actions. We have the ability (and have used it) to alter massive amounts of land and wipe out entire communities. 99% of the original tall grass prairies have been transformed. 95% of the North West old growth forest has been destroyed. More than half of all wetlands have been drained or cleared. We, as a species, have immense power. Because, as you said, we can do it consciously, it necessarily comes with immense responsibility. The condor is a great example of a time when we realized the effect our actions were having on another species and we took responsibility, respected the right of the species to survive, and changed how we lived. I'm not saying that everything we do is bad, but in general, our normal actions do more harm than good if we are not careful and mindful of the life around us. It's easier to be lazy than to be respectful.

Tim, I'm just not able to share for pessimism and disdain for humankind. Sure, we have made many messes. However, we are the only animal capable of recognizing our efforts, implementing corrective acition, and applying 'lessons learned' to the future. In regards to loss of grasslands, have you noticed the expanding fields of waving amber CRP in lieu of crops? Regarding wetlands, Ducks Unlimited has been wildly successful in restoring wetlands. In fact the numbers of snow geese are threatning tundra nesting grounds. I don't know what action groups you are aligned with, but check out the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and its member organizations. http://trcp.org/boardandpolicycouncilgroups.aspx I believe when people become part of the solution with their money, time, and efforts that optimism becomes infectious.

I completely agree with you that when we put our minds to it, we can do amazing things. I just think we haven't put our minds to it, in most respects, nearly enough. There are some great programs and great efforts that really are making a difference, but I think we have a long way to go. And thankfully, perhaps because, as you said, optimisim is infectious, there seems to be growing support. I don't hate humankind. I just think we've messed up a lot, are still messing up a lot, and haven't yet attempted to heal much of what we've wounded.

Interesting federal court ruling on feeding Yellowstone's elk. http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2006/06/06/news/wyoming/f53b293ecbe658498725718400807c26.txt

'In his five-page decision last week, Johnson wrote that the Stock Growers Association and its individual members “have substantial economic and private property interest in preserving the elk management program at issue in this case.”

Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna said his organization was excited about the decision and noted Johnson’s statement recognizing the interest of the cattle industry in elk management in Wyoming.

”That’s the reason we sought intervention,” Magagna said, adding that his goal is to ensure that the economic and property interests of cattle producers are protected.'